 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Does the World have parts, objects, and relationships?... |
|
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Jones... |
 Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole. By "relationships" I refer to the relationships of objects,
behaviours, temporal sequence of events, etc.
There are no objects in the world. The world has no "parts". There are
no objects or parts because we only ever see a whole, and a whole is not
countable. A whole is not countable because there are no other points of
reference to make a count possible.
Is this a ridiculous idea? Not really. We all take things at a glance.
When we talk about objects, and include "this object" with "that object"
then the description we give of "these objects" is always a description
of a whole. If we assign numbers to the objects then we don't make these
objects part of a set or part of a collection. We merely elaborate, with
each count, the grammatical possibilities of expressing the whole.
FOR THE LOGICIAN
For the logicians, it means that all logical propositions, functions,
sets, the elements of sets, variables, etc., are atomic facts,
propositions or objects, incommensurable and not subject to
relationship. As all logical symbols are "wholes" an atomic fact or
object is, therefore, the simplest description of a whole.
As Wittgensteinian's know
"aRb" does not say that a and b are in the relationship R,
it shows, rather,
"That "a" stands to "b" in a certain relation says that aRb."
(Tractatus, 3.1432)
Copi thinks that Wittgenstein is here indicating that there are two
ingredients in aRb. Hintikka thinks that there are three, that R is an
object. But I say that there are no ingredients or objects in this
relationship. Wittgenstein is here using the term "relationship" as the
name of an uncountable whole. To then talk about parts or ingredients is
to present a description of a different whole.
FINALLY, AN EXAMPLE
Before the example, I give, as further description of my point, wholes
are incommensurable, emergent, and not constituted of parts or objects.
Parts and objects do not subsist in their own right, they are
grammatical possibilities of the whole. Parts and objects are different
grammatical descriptions of a whole. Now, every time we create an
object, or refer to an an object, we create a whole.
A relationship, an object, and a part, are ways of describing,
introducing, or speaking about a whole.
If the umbrella is in the hallway, then there is not a hallway and an
umbrella in relationship, there is a whole state of affairs "umbrella in
the hallway" that bears no relationship to its supposed "parts". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| TrekBear... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 3, 5:59 pm, Enkidu <enk... at (no spam) nogodhere.net> wrote:
[quote:4fbeac544d]On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:24:45 +0100, John Jones wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
Yep. A rock is an object, not an idea or a relationship.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg
[/quote:4fbeac544d]
If you want to get particularly philosophical about this (and a wee
bit pedantic), it can be said that a rock is a relationship of its
component parts (including any flora or fauna that exist on or subsist
from it) and their component molecules and atoms. A rock also exists
in relationship to its geographical surroundings: it's part of a
field, mountain, rock formation, or other structure. From a
metaphysical approach, a rock also exist in relation to its temporal-
spatial environment for the duration of its "rockness." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Enkidu... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:24:45 +0100, John Jones wrote:
[quote:f4a60438b8]A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
[/quote:f4a60438b8]
Yep. A rock is an object, not an idea or a relationship.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Marshall... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote:9908340bd0]A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
[/quote:9908340bd0]
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
[quote:9908340bd0]FINALLY, AN EXAMPLE
Before the example
[/quote:9908340bd0]
I love the juxtaposition here.
Marshall |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Shrikeback... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 3, 9:05 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:524b0752cc]On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
[/quote:524b0752cc]
Exactly! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 3 Jul 2009 22:59:36 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<enkidu at (no spam) nogodhere.net> in <7b7gqoF225lb2U3 at (no spam) mid.individual.net> wrote:
[quote:db047233c6]On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:24:45 +0100, John Jones wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
Yep. A rock is an object, not an idea or a relationship.
[/quote:db047233c6]
That is not what he was saying though.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism , Shrikeback
<shrikeback at (no spam) gmail.com> in
<a5d8d6e1-1cbe-47a8-ad4a-4cf0ef47c38e at (no spam) d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
[quote:725bb12c4a]On Jul 3, 9:05 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
Exactly!
[/quote:725bb12c4a]
Beat me to it. Yes, there is just stuff. We have names we use to point
to things so we can communicate about stuff, we see various
similarities allowing us to use the same name to point to different
stuff, but none of that means that the stuff is distinct from other
stuff nor that a thing *has* parts. Parts, wholes, relationships,
those are all things we name to communicate about the world.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| dorayme... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <umrt45dea76a71063o901h0gukof739si2 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam at (no spam) ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[quote:4fb71777e8]On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism , Shrikeback
shrikeback at (no spam) gmail.com> in
a5d8d6e1-1cbe-47a8-ad4a-4cf0ef47c38e at (no spam) d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com
wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:05Â pm, Marshall <marshall.spi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:24Â pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
Exactly!
Beat me to it. Yes, there is just stuff. We have names we use to point
to things so we can communicate about stuff, we see various
similarities allowing us to use the same name to point to different
stuff, but none of that means that the stuff is distinct from other
stuff nor that a thing *has* parts. Parts, wholes, relationships,
those are all things we name to communicate about the world.
[/quote:4fb71777e8]
The phrase "grammatically convenient fiction" suggests that the world
does not dictate our choices. But the world clearly and rudely does.
Perhaps an "unrealism" is being wrongly promoted here?
--
dorayme |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 2:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 4, 12:05 am, Marshall <marshall.spi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:e1d2ea3bc1]On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
[/quote:e1d2ea3bc1]
Yes. JJ doesn't like it when you point out that he is rediscovering
the universe every time he rediscovers the wheel.
-tg
[quote:e1d2ea3bc1]
FINALLY, AN EXAMPLE
Before the example
I love the juxtaposition here.
Marshall[/quote:e1d2ea3bc1] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matt Silberstein... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:36:25 +1000, in alt.atheism , dorayme
<doraymeRidThis at (no spam) optusnet.com.au> in
<doraymeRidThis-57A4D1.16362504072009 at (no spam) news.albasani.net> wrote:
[quote:4ee6ee7316]In article <umrt45dea76a71063o901h0gukof739si2 at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam at (no spam) ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism , Shrikeback
shrikeback at (no spam) gmail.com> in
a5d8d6e1-1cbe-47a8-ad4a-4cf0ef47c38e at (no spam) d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com
wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:05 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
Exactly!
Beat me to it. Yes, there is just stuff. We have names we use to point
to things so we can communicate about stuff, we see various
similarities allowing us to use the same name to point to different
stuff, but none of that means that the stuff is distinct from other
stuff nor that a thing *has* parts. Parts, wholes, relationships,
those are all things we name to communicate about the world.
The phrase "grammatically convenient fiction" suggests that the world
does not dictate our choices.
[/quote:4ee6ee7316]
I don't know why it suggests that to you, it does not suggest it to
me. Words are maps and maps are not territories. They are fictions,
some useful, some not.
[quote:4ee6ee7316]But the world clearly and rudely does.
Perhaps an "unrealism" is being wrongly promoted here?
[/quote:4ee6ee7316]
Perhaps, but it is not my intent to propose that. I have know idea
what JJ thinks though.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ZerkonXXXX... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:24:45 +0100, John Jones wrote:
[quote:45cfe1dd84]There are no objects in the world. The world has no "parts". There are
no objects or parts because we only ever see a whole, and a whole is not
countable.
[/quote:45cfe1dd84]
I'd say while we live in this whole, thought, in order to exist, demands
finite perceptions of this whole. Parts exist as parts.
The weight of your position seems to stands on your definition of
'fiction'. Do you mean a mistake? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Marshall wrote:
[quote:5d79165bba]On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
FINALLY, AN EXAMPLE
Before the example
I love the juxtaposition here.
Marshall
[/quote:5d79165bba]
I meant that a part, or an object is always a description of a whole. A
part or object, on its own terms, as "per se", is a grammatical fiction
in that it does not reference either a part or an object, but that it
references a whole. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Shrikeback wrote:
[quote:a203d66311]On Jul 3, 9:05 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
Exactly!
[/quote:a203d66311]
A whole is not entirely a grammatically convenient fiction - because it
destabilises the concept of an identifiable part or object. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
[quote:fa1643e6c9]On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT), in alt.atheism , Shrikeback
shrikeback at (no spam) gmail.com> in
a5d8d6e1-1cbe-47a8-ad4a-4cf0ef47c38e at (no spam) d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com
wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:05 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
Exactly!
Beat me to it. Yes, there is just stuff. We have names we use to point
to things so we can communicate about stuff, we see various
similarities allowing us to use the same name to point to different
stuff, but none of that means that the stuff is distinct from other
stuff nor that a thing *has* parts. Parts, wholes, relationships,
those are all things we name to communicate about the world.
[/quote:fa1643e6c9]
But if we acknowledge that communication then we can hardly call that
communication a convenient fiction. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Jones... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tgdenning at (no spam) earthlink.net wrote:
[quote:31b737db96]On Jul 4, 12:05 am, Marshall <marshall.spi... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:24 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
A RIDICULOUS IDEA?
I argue that relationships, parts and objects are grammatically
convenient fictions, and that they are, instead, descriptions of a
whole.
Wholes are also grammatically convenient fictions.
Yes. JJ doesn't like it when you point out that he is rediscovering
the universe every time he rediscovers the wheel.
-tg
FINALLY, AN EXAMPLE
Before the example
I love the juxtaposition here.
Marshall
[/quote:31b737db96]
see JJ above response |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:26 am
|
|